Opinion
12-02-2015
PEOPLE of State of New York, respondent, v. Jose TIGRE, appellant.
Robert C. Mitchell, Riverhead, N.Y. (James H. Miller III of counsel), for appellant. Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Alfred J. Croce of counsel), for respondent.
Robert C. Mitchell, Riverhead, N.Y. (James H. Miller III of counsel), for appellant.
Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Alfred J. Croce of counsel), for respondent.
Opinion
Appeal by the defendant from an order of the County Court, Suffolk County (Kahn, J.), dated February 27, 2015, which, after a hearing, designated him a level two sex offender pursuant to Correction Law article 6–C.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
In establishing a defendant's risk level pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act, the People bear the burden of establishing, by clear and convincing evidence, the facts supporting the determinations sought (see Correction Law § 168–n[3]; People v. Wyatt, 89 A.D.3d 112, 117–118, 931 N.Y.S.2d 85). “In assessing points, evidence may be derived from the defendant's admissions, the victim's statements, evaluative reports completed by the supervising probation officer, parole officer, or corrections counselor, case summaries prepared by the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders ..., or any other reliable source, including reliable hearsay” (People v. Crandall, 90 A.D.3d 628, 629, 934 N.Y.S.2d 446; see People v. Mingo, 12 N.Y.3d 563, 573, 883 N.Y.S.2d 154, 910 N.E.2d 983; Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary at 5 [2006]; People v. Arocho, 130 A.D.3d 996, 997, 13 N.Y.S.3d 836; People v. Lucius, 122 A.D.3d 819, 996 N.Y.S.2d 659; People v. Finizio, 100 A.D.3d 977, 978, 954 N.Y.S.2d 636).
Here, contrary to the defendant's contention, the County Court properly assessed 25 points under risk factor 2 and 20 points under risk factor 4. The assessment of these points was supported by clear and convincing evidence in the record, which included the victim's sworn statements (see People v. Mingo, 12 N.Y.3d at 573, 576, 883 N.Y.S.2d 154, 910 N.E.2d 983). Accordingly, based on the points assessed, the defendant was properly designated a level two sex offender.
RIVERA, J.P., LEVENTHAL, MILLER and DUFFY, JJ., concur.